Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Symposium', 'Explanations in reply to Mr Bradley' and 'No Moral Difference'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

---

4 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / a. Philosophy as worldly

23025	Philosophers should be more inductive, and test results by their conclusions, not their self-evidence [Russell]
	Full Idea: The progress of philosophy seems to demand that, like science, it should learn to practise induction, to test its premisses by the conclusions to which they lead, and not merely by their apparent self-evidence.
	From: Bertrand Russell (Explanations in reply to Mr Bradley [1899], nr end)
	A reaction: [from Twitter] Love this. It is 'one person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens'. I think all philosophical conclusions, without exception, should be reached by evaluating the final result fully, and not just following a line of argument.

22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / h. Fine deeds

5845	Niceratus learnt the whole of Homer by heart, as a guide to goodness [Xenophon]
	Full Idea: Niceratus said that his father, because he was concerned to make him a good man, made him learn the whole works of Homer, and he could still repeat by heart the entire 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'.
	From: Xenophon (Symposium [c.391 BCE], 3.5)
	A reaction: This clearly shows the status which Homer had in the teaching of morality in the time of Socrates, and it is precisely this acceptance of authority which he was challenging, in his attempts to analyse the true basis of virtue

25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia

4053	If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply [Rachels]
	Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply.
	From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102)
	A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets?

4052	It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia [Rachels]
	Full Idea: It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable.
	From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97)
	A reaction: He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them.